Tag Archives: RCT

Many clinicians extrapolate adult research findings to paediatric patients because there’s no alternative, and until now we’ve had to do that with post-cardiac arrest therapeutic hypothermia after paediatric cardiac arrest.

However the THAPCA trial in the New England Journal of Medicine now provides child-specific data.

It was a multicentre trial in the US which included children between 2 days and 18 years of age, who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and remained comatose after return of circulation. They were randomised to therapeutic hypothermia (target temperature, 33.0°C) or therapeutic normothermia (target temperature, 36.8°C) within 6 hours after the return of circulation.

Therapeutic hypothermia, as compared with therapeutic normothermia, did not confer a significant benefit with respect to survival with good functional outcome at 1 year, and survival at 12 months did not differ significantly between the treatment groups.

These findings are similar to the adult TTM trial, although there are some interesting differences. In the paediatric study, the duration of temperature control was longer (120 hrs vs 36 hrs in the adult study), respiratory conditions were the predominant cause of paediatric cardiac arrest (72%), and there were only 8% shockable rhythms in the paediatric patients, compared with 80% in the adult study.

Background: Therapeutic hypothermia is recommended for comatose adults after witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but data about this intervention in children are limited.

Methods: We conducted this trial of two targeted temperature interventions at 38 children’s hospitals involving children who remained unconscious after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Within 6 hours after the return of circulation, comatose patients who were older than 2 days and younger than 18 years of age were randomly assigned to therapeutic hypothermia (target temperature, 33.0°C) or therapeutic normothermia (target temperature, 36.8°C). The primary efficacy outcome, survival at 12 months after cardiac arrest with a Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, second edition (VABS-II), score of 70 or higher (on a scale from 20 to 160, with higher scores indicating better function), was evaluated among patients with a VABS-II score of at least 70 before cardiac arrest.

Results: A total of 295 patients underwent randomization. Among the 260 patients with data that could be evaluated and who had a VABS-II score of at least 70 before cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the hypothermia group and the normothermia group (20% vs. 12%; relative likelihood, 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 2.76; P=0.14). Among all the patients with data that could be evaluated, the change in the VABS-II score from baseline to 12 months was not significantly different (P=0.13) and 1-year survival was similar (38% in the hypothermia group vs. 29% in the normothermia group; relative likelihood, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.79; P=0.13). The groups had similar incidences of infection and serious arrhythmias, as well as similar use of blood products and 28-day mortality.

Conclusions: In comatose children who survived out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, therapeutic hypothermia, as compared with therapeutic normothermia, did not confer a significant benefit in survival with a good functional outcome at 1 year.

The second of three major trials assessing early goal directed therapy (EGDT) in sepsis – the Australasian ARISE Trial – has been published.

ARISE tested the hypothesis that EGDT, as compared with usual care, would decrease 90-day all-cause mortality among patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock in diverse health care settings.

There was no difference in all-cause mortality at 90 days between EGDT and standard care, in keeping with the results from ProCESS.

Why are the results so different from Rivers’ original EGDT study? The authors explain:

“although our results differ from those in the original trial, they are consistent with previous studies showing that bias in small, single-center trials may lead to inflated effect sizes”

This cautions us all against making major practice changes based on one single centre study. In critical care we’ve learned this before with subjects like tight glycaemic control and Activated Protein C. However I do believe that the things we know to be of benefit – early recognition, source control, antibiotics, and fluids – are effective in making ‘standard’ care “as good as” EGDT because of heightened awareness of the condition and its treatment, and Rivers’ initial study and the subsequent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines have played a major role in raising that awareness.

Background
Early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) has been endorsed in the guidelines of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign as a key strategy to decrease mortality among patients presenting to the emergency department with septic shock. However, its effectiveness is uncertain.

Methods In this trial conducted at 51 centers (mostly in Australia or New Zealand), we randomly assigned patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock to receive either EGDT or usual care. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90 days after randomization.

Results Of the 1600 enrolled patients, 796 were assigned to the EGDT group and 804 to the usual-care group. Primary outcome data were available for more than 99% of the patients. Patients in the EGDT group received a larger mean (±SD) volume of intravenous fluids in the first 6 hours after randomization than did those in the usual-care group (1964±1415 ml vs. 1713±1401 ml) and were more likely to receive vasopressor infusions (66.6% vs. 57.8%), red-cell transfusions (13.6% vs. 7.0%), and dobutamine (15.4% vs. 2.6%) (P<0.001 for all comparisons). At 90 days after randomization, 147 deaths had occurred in the EGDT group and 150 had occurred in the usual-care group, for rates of death of 18.6% and 18.8%, respectively (absolute risk difference with EGDT vs. usual care, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -4.1 to 3.6; P=0.90). There was no significant difference in survival time, in-hospital mortality, duration of organ support, or length of hospital stay.

Conclusions In critically ill patients presenting to the emergency department with early septic shock, EGDT did not reduce all-cause mortality at 90 days.

A study comparing mean arterial pressure (MAP) targets of 80 to 85 mm Hg (high-target group) with 65 to 70 mm Hg (low-target group) n 776 septic shock patients – the SEPSISPAM study – did not show a difference in the primary endpoint of 28 day mortality. Among patients with chronic hypertension, those in the high-target group required less renal-replacement therapy than did those in the low-target group. In my view this supports an approach that targets MAP based on the individual patient’s history rather than a blanket one-number-fits-all approach. The MAPs actually achieved in the low-target group were between 70-75 mm of Hg.

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign recommends targeting a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg during initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock. However, whether this blood-pressure target is more or less effective than a higher target is unknown.

Methods: In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support.

Results: At 28 days, there was no significant between-group difference in mortality, with deaths reported in 142 of 388 patients in the high-target group (36.6%) and 132 of 388 patients in the low-target group (34.0%) (hazard ratio in the high-target group, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.38; P=0.57). There was also no significant difference in mortality at 90 days, with 170 deaths (43.8%) and 164 deaths (42.3%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.30; P=0.74). The occurrence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups (74 events [19.1%] and 69 events [17.8%], respectively; P=0.64). However, the incidence of newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation was higher in the high-target group than in the low-target group. Among patients with chronic hypertension, those in the high-target group required less renal-replacement therapy than did those in the low-target group, but such therapy was not associated with a difference in mortality.

Conclusions: Targeting a mean arterial pressure of 80 to 85 mm Hg, as compared with 65 to 70 mm Hg, in patients with septic shock undergoing resuscitation did not result in significant differences in mortality at either 28 or 90 days.

The first of three major trials assessing early goal directed therapy (EGDT) in sepsis – the American ProCESS Trial – has been published.

It showed what many of us thought – that the specific monitoring via a central line of central venous oxygen saturation – was not necessary for improved survival.

However the trial randomised 1341 patients to one of three arms:
(1) protocolised EGDT
(2) protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions
(3) ‘usual care’ which was not standardised.

There were no differences in any of the primary or secondary outcomes between the groups.

Interestingly, in the six hours of early care that the trial dictated, the volume of intravenous fluids administered differed significantly among the groups (2.8 litres in the protocol-based EGDT group, 3.3 litres in the protocol-based standard-therapy group, and 2.3 litres in the usual-care group).

There was also a difference in the amount of vasopressor given, with more patients in the two protocol-based groups receiving vasopressors (54.9% in the protocol-based EGDT group, 52.2% in the protocol-based standard-therapy group, 44.1% in the usual-care group).

The use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, dobutamine, and blood transfusions between 6 and 72 hours did not differ significantly among the groups.

Overall 60 day mortality was in the region of 20% for all groups.

What are the take home points here? Firstly, overall sepsis outcomes have improved over recent years, and early recognition and antibiotic administration may be the most important components of care. In the early emergency department phase of care, protocolised fluid and vasopressor therapy may not be as important as we thought. Good clinical assessment and regular review seem to be as effective and perhaps more important than any specific monitoring modality or oxygen delivery-targeted drug and blood therapy.

We all await the ARISE and ProMISE studies which may shed more light on the most important components of early sepsis care.

Background: In a single-center study published more than a decade ago involving patients presenting to the emergency department with severe sepsis and septic shock, mortality was markedly lower among those who were treated according to a 6-hour protocol of early goal-directed therapy (EGDT), in which intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions were adjusted to reach central hemodynamic targets, than among those receiving usual care. We conducted a trial to determine whether these findings were generalizable and whether all aspects of the protocol were necessary.

Methods: In 31 emergency departments in the United States, we randomly assigned patients with septic shock to one of three groups for 6 hours of resuscitation: protocol-based EGDT; protocol-based standard therapy that did not require the placement of a central venous catheter, administration of inotropes, or blood transfusions; or usual care. The primary end point was 60-day in-hospital mortality. We tested sequentially whether protocol-based care (EGDT and standard-therapy groups combined) was superior to usual care and whether protocol-based EGDT was superior to protocol-based standard therapy. Secondary outcomes included longer-term mortality and the need for organ support.

Results: We enrolled 1341 patients, of whom 439 were randomly assigned to protocol-based EGDT, 446 to protocol-based standard therapy, and 456 to usual care. Resuscitation strategies differed significantly with respect to the monitoring of central venous pressure and oxygen and the use of intravenous fluids, vasopressors, inotropes, and blood transfusions. By 60 days, there were 92 deaths in the protocol-based EGDT group (21.0%), 81 in the protocol-based standard-therapy group (18.2%), and 86 in the usual-care group (18.9%) (relative risk with protocol-based therapy vs. usual care, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.31; P=0.83; relative risk with protocol-based EGDT vs. protocol-based standard therapy, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.51; P=0.31). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality, 1-year mortality, or the need for organ support.

Conclusions: In a multicenter trial conducted in the tertiary care setting, protocol-based resuscitation of patients in whom septic shock was diagnosed in the emergency department did not improve outcomes

There’s so much debate on which components of Early Goal Directed Therapy in sepsis really make a difference. The good news is that three randomised controlled trials in the UK, Australasia, and North America, aim to answer the question, and the study design from the outset has been a collaboration that will allow the results to be pooled.

Editorialists Krischan D Sjauw and Jan J Piek from the Netherlands make the following commentary(3) in reference to one of the studies:

Although the results of IABP-SHOCK II question the usefulness of IABP therapy in cardiogenic shock, there still might be an indication for initial stabilisation of severely compromised patients, especially in centres without facilities for early revascularisation, as an adjunct to thrombolytic therapy, or to allow transport to specialised tertiary centres.

So retrieval specialists like me may still be up in the night transferring patients with balloon pumps, but these studies suggest this should be restricted to those with cardiogenic shock pending corrective therapy (eg. revascularisation for AMI or surgery for acute mitral valvular dysfunction). Unless the ECMO team gets to them first, of course.

BACKGROUND: In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results.

METHODS: The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036.

FINDINGS: Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump use in high-risk patients undergoing surgical coronary revascularization is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to determine whether the preoperative use of an intra-aortic balloon pump improves the outcome after coronary operations in high-risk patients.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome measurement was postoperative major morbidity rate, defined as one of prolonged mechanical ventilation, stroke, acute kidney injury, surgical revision, mediastinitis, and operative mortality. There was no difference in major morbidity rate (40% in intra-aortic balloon pump group and 31% in control group; odds ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 0.68-3.33]). No differences were observed for cardiac index before and after the operation; at the arrival in the ICU, patients in the intra-aortic balloon pump group had a significantly (p = 0.01) lower mean systemic arterial pressure (80.1 ± 15.1 mm Hg) versus control group patients (89.2 ± 17.9 mm Hg). Fewer patients in the intra-aortic balloon pump group (24%) than those in the control group (44%) required dopamine infusion (p = 0.043).

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that in patients undergoing nonemergent coronary operations, with a stable hemodynamic profile and a left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, the preincision insertion of intra-aortic balloon pump does not result in a better outcome. Given the possible complications of intra-aortic balloon pump insertion, and the additional cost of the procedure, this approach is not justified.

Counterintuitive as it sounds, this is pretty cool. I blogged about these guys before when they published their findings on microcirculatory flow in septic patients given beta blockers.

It’s a small study – 77 patients with septic shock and a heart rate of 95/min or higher requiring high-dose norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure of at least 65 mm Hg were randomised to receive a continuous infusion of esmolol titrated to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min for their ICU stay. 77 patients received standard treatment. It should be noted the primary outcome (target heart rate) was not a patient-oriented endpoint. Interestingly though, there were no increased adverse events in the beta blocker group, which demonstrated improved left ventricular stroke work, lower lactate levels, decreased noradrenaline and fluid requirements, improved oxygenation, and a lower mortality.

Caution is appropriate here though: this study was a small, single-centre open-label trial. It will be very interesting to see if these effects are reproduced and whether they will ultimately translate to meaningful outcome benefits.

IMPORTANCE: β-Blocker therapy may control heart rate and attenuate the deleterious effects of β-adrenergic receptor stimulation in septic shock. However, β-Blockers are not traditionally used for this condition and may worsen cardiovascular decompensation related through negative inotropic and hypotensive effects.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of the short-acting β-blocker esmolol in patients with severe septic shock.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Open-label, randomized phase 2 study, conducted in a university hospital intensive care unit (ICU) between November 2010 and July 2012, involving patients in septic shock with a heart rate of 95/min or higher requiring high-dose norepinephrine to maintain a mean arterial pressure of 65 mm Hg or higher.

INTERVENTIONS: We randomly assigned 77 patients to receive a continuous infusion of esmolol titrated to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min for their ICU stay and 77 patients to standard treatment.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Our primary outcome was a reduction in heart rate below the predefined threshold of 95/min and to maintain heart rate between 80/min and 94/min by esmolol treatment over a 96-hour period. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and organ function measures; norepinephrine dosages at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours; and adverse events and mortality occurring within 28 days after randomization.

RESULTS: Targeted heart rates were achieved in all patients in the esmolol group compared with those in the control group. The median AUC for heart rate during the first 96 hours was -28/min (IQR, -37 to -21) for the esmolol group vs -6/min (95% CI, -14 to 0) for the control group with a mean reduction of 18/min (P < .001). For stroke volume index, the median AUC for esmolol was 4 mL/m2 (IQR, -1 to 10) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, -3 to 5; P = .02), whereas the left ventricular stroke work index for esmolol was 3 mL/m2 (IQR, 0 to 8) vs 1 mL/m2 for the control group (IQR, -2 to 5; P = .03). For arterial lactatemia, median AUC for esmolol was -0.1 mmol/L (IQR, -0.6 to 0.2) vs 0.1 mmol/L for the control group (IQR, -0.3 for 0.6; P = .007); for norepinephrine, -0.11 μg/kg/min (IQR, -0.46 to 0.02) for the esmolol group vs -0.01 μg/kg/min (IQR, -0.2 to 0.44) for the control group (P = .003). Fluid requirements were reduced in the esmolol group: median AUC was 3975 mL/24 h (IQR, 3663 to 4200) vs 4425 mL/24 h(IQR, 4038 to 4775) for the control group (P

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients in septic shock, open-label use of esmolol vs standard care was associated with reductions in heart rates to achieve target levels, without increased adverse events. The observed improvement in mortality and other secondary clinical outcomes warrants further investigation.

It’s nice to have big randomised trials to guide critical care practice. The age-old crystalloid/colloid debate (is that still going?) has fueled a multicentre and multinational study in 2857 patients with hypovolaemic shock on intensive care units. Patients were classified as having sepsis, trauma, or other causes of hypovolaemic shock.

In the crystalloids group, allowed treatments included isotonic or hypertonic saline and any buffered solutions. In the colloids group, gelatins, albumin from 4-25%, dextrans, and hydroxyethyl starches were permitted.

The primary outcome of 28 day mortality was no different between groups. The study had an open-label design and recruitment took place over nine years.

OBJECTIVE: To test whether use of colloids compared with crystalloids for fluid resuscitation alters mortality in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with hypovolemic shock.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial stratified by case mix (sepsis, trauma, or hypovolemic shock without sepsis or trauma). Therapy in the Colloids Versus Crystalloids for the Resuscitation of the Critically Ill (CRISTAL) trial was open label but outcome assessment was blinded to treatment assignment. Recruitment began in February 2003 and ended in August 2012 of 2857 sequential ICU patients treated at 57 ICUs in France, Belgium, North Africa, and Canada; follow-up ended in November 2012.

INTERVENTIONS: Colloids (n = 1414; gelatins, dextrans, hydroxyethyl starches, or 4% or 20% of albumin) or crystalloids (n = 1443; isotonic or hypertonic saline or Ringer lactate solution) for all fluid interventions other than fluid maintenance throughout the ICU stay.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was death within 28 days. Secondary outcomes included 90-day mortality; and days alive and not receiving renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, or vasopressor therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among ICU patients with hypovolemia, the use of colloids vs crystalloids did not result in a significant difference in 28-day mortality. Although 90-day mortality was lower among patients receiving colloids, this finding should be considered exploratory and requires further study before reaching conclusions about efficacy.

To operate or not to operate on patients with an intracerebral haematoma? Deep ones can be tricky and risk damage to surrounding brain, so superficial ones may be more likely to benefit.

These patients with superficial lesions were assessed in STICH II, an international prospective randomised controlled trial comparing early surgery with conservative treatment.

Inclusion criteria were strict:

spontaneous lobar intracerebral haemorrhage on CT scan (≤1 cm from the cortical surface of the brain) with a volume of between 10 mL and 100 mL

within 48 h of onset

had a best motor score on the Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) of 5 or 6, and had a best eye score of 2 or more (ie, were conscious at randomisation).

The primary outcome was a Glasgow Outcome Scale-based evaluation of recovery (‘favourable’ vs ‘unfavourable’), which did not significantly differ between groups.

A predefined subgroup of patients with a poorer prognosis (using a score based on age, haematoma size and GCS) may have a better outcome with surgery. Some patients randomised to conservative therapy subsequently underwent delayed surgery. Thanks to appropriate intention-to-treat analysis they would have remained in the conservative treatment group which may have contributed to an underestimation of the benefit of surgery.

So, overall a negative trial, and patients with small lesions and higher GCS scores won’t benefit from surgery. Patients in poorer prognostic groups might benefit, but that remains unproven.

Some other ICH trials to be aware of are Clear III and MISTIE III, which are investigating thrombolytic agents in combination with clot removal, including with minimally invasive techniques.

BACKGROUND: The balance of risk and benefit from early neurosurgical intervention for conscious patients with superficial lobar intracerebral haemorrhage of 10-100 mL and no intraventricular haemorrhage admitted within 48 h of ictus is unclear. We therefore tested the hypothesis that early surgery compared with initial conservative treatment could improve outcome in these patients.

METHODS: In this international, parallel-group trial undertaken in 78 centres in 27 countries, we compared early surgical haematoma evacuation within 12 h of randomisation plus medical treatment with initial medical treatment alone (later evacuation was allowed if judged necessary). An automatic telephone and internet-based randomisation service was used to assign patients to surgery and initial conservative treatment in a 1:1 ratio. The trial was not masked. The primary outcome was a prognosis-based dichotomised (favourable or unfavourable) outcome of the 8 point Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) obtained by questionnaires posted to patients at 6 months. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN22153967.

FINDINGS: 307 of 601 patients were randomly assigned to early surgery and 294 to initial conservative treatment; 298 and 291 were followed up at 6 months, respectively; and 297 and 286 were included in the analysis, respectively. 174 (59%) of 297 patients in the early surgery group had an unfavourable outcome versus 178 (62%) of 286 patients in the initial conservative treatment group (absolute difference 3·7% [95% CI -4·3 to 11·6], odds ratio 0·86 [0·62 to 1·20]; p=0·367).

INTERPRETATION: The STICH II results confirm that early surgery does not increase the rate of death or disability at 6 months and might have a small but clinically relevant survival advantage for patients with spontaneous superficial intracerebral haemorrhage without intraventricular haemorrhage.

In our retrieval service case reviews, one thing that is that sure to generate discussion is what to do about the blood pressure in patients who present with intracranial haemorrhage and hypertension. We don’t want the bleeding to be worsened by higher blood pressure, but we don’t want to decrease cerebral perfusion pressure in patients who have raised intracranial pressure. Consensus guidelines exist for spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage, but they’re not based on strong data.

Here’s a study that attempted to provide more information. Intensive lowering to a target systolic of 140 mmHg within 1 hour was compared with lowering to a target of 180 mmHg. There was no significant reduction in the rate of the primary outcome of death or severe disability. The skeptic in me is disappointed there was no placebo arm. An ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scores favoured the intensive BP-lowering intervention, which means this study can be used by both those for and against intensive BP lowering to support their views.

As explained in an accompanying editorial, a number of factors may limit generalisability to Western practice, such as the predominant use of the alpha-blocking agent urapadil in the large numbers of Asian patients, a drug not available in the United States. Future publication of the ATACH-II trial using intravenous nicardipine will shed more light on this topic.

BACKGROUND: Whether rapid lowering of elevated blood pressure would improve the outcome in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage is not known.

METHODS: We randomly assigned 2839 patients who had had a spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage within the previous 6 hours and who had elevated systolic blood pressure to receive intensive treatment to lower their blood pressure (with a target systolic level of <140 mm Hg within 1 hour) or guideline-recommended treatment (with a target systolic level of <180 mm Hg) with the use of agents of the physician’s choosing. The primary outcome was death or major disability, which was defined as a score of 3 to 6 on the modified Rankin scale (in which a score of 0 indicates no symptoms, a score of 5 indicates severe disability, and a score of 6 indicates death) at 90 days. A prespecified ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin score was also performed. The rate of serious adverse events was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS: Among the 2794 participants for whom the primary outcome could be determined, 719 of 1382 participants (52.0%) receiving intensive treatment, as compared with 785 of 1412 (55.6%) receiving guideline-recommended treatment, had a primary outcome event (odds ratio with intensive treatment, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.06). The ordinal analysis showed significantly lower modified Rankin scores with intensive treatment (odds ratio for greater disability, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P=0.04). Mortality was 11.9% in the group receiving intensive treatment and 12.0% in the group receiving guideline-recommended treatment. Nonfatal serious adverse events occurred in 23.3% and 23.6% of the patients in the two groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intracerebral hemorrhage, intensive lowering of blood pressure did not result in a significant reduction in the rate of the primary outcome of death or severe disability. An ordinal analysis of modified Rankin scores indicated improved functional outcomes with intensive lowering of blood pressure.